One of the 3 aims of the Scottish government's culture plan is...
"To make sure each community is recognised as having its own culture and sense of identity."
Blows the predictable tinfoil hat brigade theories mentioned above out of the water.
No it doesn't.
Firstly, governments, and the Holyrood one no less so than others, are great at saying things, but when it come sto actually delivering on them, half-heartedly, reluctantly and eventually are the order of the day. Cheaper ferry fares and still trying, and failing to sort out a 3+ year old mess of their own making to pay agricultural subsidies being two prime examples.
Secondly, culture is led by individuals first more often than not, and only communities by default secondly. Fiddle playing and fiddle tunes are held in some regard in Shetland culture, some communities in the past were 'lucky' in having several talented and willing fiddle players, others were lucky if they had one, who as often as not had to be persuaded (bribed) to travel some considerable distance and then constantly persuaded (bribed) throughout the night to continue playing. Were it not for those few individuals, there would be no Shetland-wide fiddle culture of today, it would be a culture of a few select localised geographical areas, just like UHA was until relatively recently a "culture" almost exclusive to the toon.
To concentrate on the "community" aspect of culture only is to stifle the very thing that creates culture, and makes it evolve and grow. The contribution of the one individual in some way that in time spreads through a community either causing a previous 'culture' to evolve in to something different, or creating something entirely new. Certainly something needs to be reasonably widespread throughout a community to be accept as a 'culture', but to only address the 'cultures' that currently exist within a community is going to do more to slow down and stagnate the natural progressions and evolutions 'cultures' by default continously go through that keeps that popular, current and vibrant, than do anything else.
Just look at where the mainstream music industry has ended up as a result of being controlled by the bottom line driven strategies and policies of a few industry behemoths. Any government strategy, however well intentioned will inevitably have a similar effect on 'culture' for the simple reason it is people from outside of 'culture', who have very limited ir any understanding and appreciation for the subject they are making decisions on. If 'culture' would benefit from any kind of national 'strategy', the initiative and details of it need to be from those involved in 'culture' on a continous basis, who understand it and appreciate it. From the bottom up so to speak, not largely dictated from the top down as is suggested here.
This is a Holyrood initiative, and from the contents of their document it seems they have already made a number of decisions and reached a number of conclusions, and are only now soliciting comment. Comment, which they may or may not heed at their own whim. That's wholly ass about udder for creating relevant and beneficial 'strategy', the initiative and realities need to come from within 'culture', and then if government involvement is desired, the government approached for comment.
Its a 'we know whats good for your culture, better than you know your culture yourself' exercise in the making as it stands.
Nothing necessariy wrong with the concept of a 'culture' strategy in and of itself, its just being punted by the wrong people in entirely the wrong way.